SHARE

Printed Letters: Aug. 6, 2014

Hobby Lobby’s beliefs selective at best
While some Daily Sentinel readers and the male members of the Supreme Court feel that the owners of Hobby Lobby should not go against their heartfelt religious beliefs about providing certain portions of health care for its employees, my research shows that these beliefs are selective at best.

While shopping at Hobby Lobby, I noticed that many of the products sold in Hobby Lobby are manufactured in China. It is well documented that air pollution and lead poisoning in Chinese manufacturing areas are at dangerous levels, especially for children.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Chinese people have no say in the selection of their leaders and are a one-party system that imposes sanctions, fines and forced abortions on rural women who have broken the one-child law. Domestic violence and employment discrimination against women are rampant in China. Only 2 percent of Chinese women have access to contraception. The Chinese government continues to thwart the independent women’s rights groups that petition for these issues to be addressed.

Back here in the U.S., Hobby Lobby’s corporate-managed 401k investment portfolio includes a large percentage of companies that manufacture products that induce abortions. These investment funds also include insurance companies that cover abortions, abortion drugs and emergency contraception.

What kind of religion ignores environmental destruction, punishes women, and supports its retirement fund from the very industry that they brand as unconscionable? Corporate religion?

Lastly, why does Hobby Lobby believe that it should have any control on what employees do with their work compensation? Health insurance is not a benefit. It is compensation for work.

As for me, my conscience tells me not to shop at Hobby Lobby.

MAGGIE LOPEZGrand Junction

Reader applauds Sentinel for substantial, quality product
Having recently visited another Colorado city with a newspaper circulation volume that I would guess to be equal to, or larger than the Sentinel’s, I was rather stupefied at the poor quality of that newspaper.

There were a few short Associated Press reports, some community stories and little news that could be considered substantial or investigative in nature. It seemed that the main purpose of that newspaper was to obtain revenue from full-page ads.

The Daily Sentinel does a great job offering a lot of important state, regional and local news and often takes the time to investigate, vet sources and get opposing opinions. The latter is possibly the most valuable feature the Sentinel offers.

The reader letters, entertainment, sports, historical articles, health care, human interest, business and other sections stand head and shoulders over that other newspaper I encountered.

A person can absorb lots of useable information in a short time in the Sentinel’s newsprint format. I find it much more visually powerful than the small snippets seen one-at-a time on a computer screen.

The Daily Sentinel is an important part of my day and I laud the management and staff in making efforts day after day not to disappoint.

JOEL PRUDHOMMEGrand Junction

EPA’s proposed guidelines will positively impact Grand Valley
I strongly support the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed guidelines to control carbon pollution. We see firsthand in the Grand Valley the negative impacts of air pollution on health and quality of life. During our infamous winter “inversions,” the local emergency rooms can attest to the increase in suffering by local residents.

In addition, carbon pollution contributes to climate change. We can’t simply adapt our communities to deal with the destructive impacts of climate change to our health and the increasingly more frequent extreme weather events we’re seeing. The EPA’s proposed guidelines are a balanced, positive step towards addressing these problems. Within our lifetimes, we’ve seen tremendous success of the Clear Air Act in reducing smog and pollution to the health and economic benefit of all.

The main argument against the Act back in 1970 is the same one used against new proposed carbon limits: it will be bad for our economy. Yet, for more than 40 years, our economy grew while the Clean Air Act worked to protect Americans’ health and reduce the haze in the skies. Old technologies give way to newer, better technologies — that’s the way of the world — and economies adjust and grow because of that. Let’s take this opportunity to grow our economy by getting a jump on clean technology development.

MARY THOMGrand Junction

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Page 1 of 1

By Jerry Sanders - Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Hobby Lobby. Health insurance is NOT compensation. It is indeed a benefit and is NOT required. If you do NOT like Hobby Lobby or its products then save yourself some grief and do NOT shop there. Largely due to king barry and limpwilly MOST goods are made somewhere overseas or Mexico. Quit whining. I am betting you do NOT even work at Hobby Lobby.

By Virginia Bright - Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Hobby Lobby case was about “taxpayers paying for abortions” against the beliefs of the owners. Hobby Lobby provided 16 other forms of birth control under their health plan prior to the (0) in office forcing the purchase of a private product on citizens. Ms. Lopez may not realize that a majority of goods in this world are no longer made in this country due to many of the same policy making wonks that forced healthcare down our throats. Other nations have been ignoring many of the moral laws we observe for years, look at pollution for one in China? 1800 cars a day added to Beijing because their economy has picked up due to sales to the USA. Ruining our economy by forcing healthcare on us will have repercussions for years, the (0) and liberal wonks are just too stupid to see it. Wake Up America Mr. Bright